Vague Translations, Poor Translations and Mistranslations

[Conan]

My apologies. The words are in italics in the 1611 edition. 1611 The Authorized King James Bible : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[Conan]

The link HERE will show hath hee quickned in type that would be the equivalent purpose of our italic type today.

Thank you rlvaughn!

 

[Van]

Yes, a number of ways are used to highlight or flag additions to the text.

 

[tyndale1946]

It seems the Calvinists now accept that sometimes adding words to provide clarity is a good thing, and does not make the verse into a paraphrase. Next, not a single word concerning how their doctrine is poured into vague and ambiguous translation choices. Finally adding words based on context is accepted as well. Thus posts 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15 were much ado about nothing...

No comment on the self appointed Calvinist Crucifier but this!... Brother Glen

Btw... Van when you go translating the scripture to what you think it means, instead of understanding what it means, you have not the foggiest idea, what it does mean... And brother you can take that to the bank!

 

[Van]

Improved and clarified translations:

1) Ephesians 2:8: "For by grace you have been saved by means of Christ's faithfulness, thus the gift is not based on you, but on God."

2) 1Corinthians 2:14: "But an unspiritual man does not accept the solid food things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

3) Romans 3:11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD when sinning:

4) Acts of the Apostles 13:48: When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had accepted direction to eternal life believed.

5) James 2:5: Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor to the world, yet rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

 

[Van]

No comment on the self appointed Calvinist Crucifier but this!... Brother Glen

Btw... Van when you go translating the scripture to what you think it means, instead of understanding what it means, you have not the foggiest idea, what it does mean... And brother you can take that to the bank!

LOL yet another Calvinist posting false claims of mind reading by which he knows he is right and I am wrong. Behold the mindset of Calvinists...

 

[Van]

Translations that use words that have two common meanings also should be clarified. Baptism should be rendered either "water baptism" or "spiritual baptism." And sanctified could be rendered either "set apart" or "made holy," again depending on context if clear.

 

[Van]

Another problem is when one English word is use to translate more than one person, place, thing or idea expressed in the source language. For example, "Hell" appears in some translations for both Hades and Gehenna, which adds confusion not clarity to the text.

The NASB95 translates Gehenna as Hell, but also translates tartaroo as hell. The KJV translates the Hebrew "sheol" as hell, the Greek Gehenna as Hell, the Greek Hades as Hell and the Greek tartaroo as hell.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Vague translation choices, or poor translation choices and mistranslation can be used to pour mistaken or false doctrine into the text. Sometimes the NET translation chooses to translate a pronoun with its antecedent. The hazard of course is if the wrong antecedent is chosen, the inspired text is corrupted.

An "antecedent" of a pronoun is the specific person, place, thing or idea to which the pronoun refers. For example,
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [fn]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
In the above verse two pronouns (that and it) refer to a vague antecedent. The footnote in the NASB identifies that the antecedent is "salvation" but plenty of Calvinist writers claim the antecedent includes faith as a gift. (The other pronoun "it" has been added, thus in italics, to smooth out the sentence.)

Here I think the translators missed a bet, as instead of adding another vague pronoun (it) they could have added in italics "salvation." Thus the verse might be translated as "For by grace you have been saved by means of faith; and that not of yourselves, salvation is the gift of God. An even better translation choice would be to find the actual antecedent of "that" with is "gift." Thus the verse, properly translated might read, "For by grace you have been saved by means of Christ's faithfulness, thus the gift is not based on you, but on God."

Contextually the more specific translation fits:
so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved by means of Christ's faithfulness, thus the gift is not based on you, but on God; therefore salvation is not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Van, you keep on showing by your comments, that you really know NOTHING about Greek grammar and its use, and trry to give an IMPRESSION, that you know what you are on about! GIVE IT UP!

 

[SavedByGrace]

Ephesians 2:1 And you, who were dead in trespasses and sins:

2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Now you brethren that are avid Bible scholars noticed I left something out because someone on another thread said do you know why some of the word in the KJV are in italics?... Its for clarity sake and left it out and you might as well throw this Bible in the trash... What about you in the text?... hath he quickened... That has to be there if it is not, the Holy Spirit has no purpose and I guess you quicken yourself?... Course some on here think they birthed themselves anyway but that's another subject... And because the italics are added this also applies... I have not found one word in my Bible that is not essential... Then there is this and I live and breathe by it!... Brother Glen

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Ephesians 2:1-10. What Does Paul Say?

 

[Paul from Antioch]

It always amazing me of how many claim it is impossible to improve our translation of God's word so that God's message is made more clear. Or that vague and ambiguous translations provide an opening to pour mistaken doctrine into the text. These are pretty basic truths that are being denied.

Is adding words to clarify the text, identified by putting them in italics, wrong? Of course not. But OTOH, sometimes the added words corrupt rather than clarify the verse, for example the "to be" added to James 2:5. It the added words are in italics, but wrong, this creates a poor translation. If the added words are not in italics, this creates a mistranslation.

Translators make choices, thus imposing their own understanding upon the text. Thus those that study their translations need not to have qualms about improving and sometimes correcting their choices in light of context. For example, if a translation choice creates a conflict with another part of the inspired text, a poor or mistaken translation choice is the likely problem.

You are 100% correct about individual translators' tendency to impose their own ideas when translating from the originals to whatever newer version of God's Word they are attempting at the time. This is why I tend to discount a so-called "Newer Version" of the Bible if that version is the work of only one person. This is why a translation committees comprised of a number of scholars of divergent evangelical schools of thought are, IMHO anyway, generally more accurate compared to a version that is the work of one sole person. This isn't to say that all translation-committee versions are always 100% correct in all of their translation works, but the odds are that a version done by such a committee generally speaking is much more accurate than one that isn't.

 

[SavedByGrace]

You are 100% correct about individual translators' tendency to impose their own ideas when translating from the originals to whatever newer version of God's Word they are attempting at the time. This is why I tend to discount a so-called "Newer Version" of the Bible if that version is the work of only one person. This is why a translation committees comprised of a number of scholars of divergent evangelical schools of thought are, IMHO anyway, generally more accurate compared to a version that is the work of one sole person. This isn't to say that all translation-committee versions are always 100% correct in all of their translation works, but the odds are that a version done by such a committee generally speaking is much more accurate than one that isn't.

Your reasoning is complete nonsense! WHY should a translation of few or many faithful Evengelical scholars, be any more "better" to represent what the original languages says, than one faithful Evengelical scholar? What exactly has the "numbers" got to do with "more accurate"? Do you own books on theology by a single scholar? Are they any less "accurate" than one done by a group of scholars?

 

[OnlyaSinner]

Your reasoning is complete nonsense! WHY should a translation of few or many faithful Evengelical scholars, be any more "better" to represent what the original languages says, than one faithful Evengelical scholar? What exactly has the "numbers" got to do with "more accurate"? Do you own books on theology by a single scholar? Are they any less "accurate" than one done by a group of scholars?

We all have our biases, and that includes anyone engaged in Bible translation. IMO, a group of godly people, learned in the original languages, is more likely to avoid the effects of personal bias than one person - however expert - working alone. That said, a one-person translation with editorial assistance from godly experts has a much better chance of avoiding bias than a purely solo effort, and I'm not trying to claim that every solo translation shows major bias effect.

 

[SavedByGrace]

We all have our biases, and that includes anyone engaged in Bible translation. IMO, a group of godly people, learned in the original languages, is more likely to avoid the effects of personal bias than one person - however expert - working alone. That said, a one-person translation with editorial assistance from godly experts has a much better chance of avoiding bias than a purely solo effort, and I'm not trying to claim that every solo translation shows major bias effect.

Rubbish

 

[Van]

Van, you keep on showing by your comments, that you really know NOTHING about Greek grammar and its use, and trry to give an IMPRESSION, that you know what you are on about! GIVE IT UP!

You know you are dealing with ignorance when the poster and not the position is addressed. And note the false charge that I try to give an IMPRESSION of ... As if every poster's every post is not posted upon the premise of validity.

Improved and clarified translations:

1) Ephesians 2:8: "For by grace you have been saved by means of Christ's faithfulness, thus the gift is not based on you, but on God."

2) 1Corinthians 2:14: "But an unspiritual man does not accept the solid food things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

3) Romans 3:11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD when sinning:

4) Acts of the Apostles 13:48: When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had accepted direction to eternal life believed.

5) James 2:5: Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor to the world, yet rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

 

[Van]

You are 100% correct about individual translators' tendency to impose their own ideas when translating from the originals to whatever newer version of God's Word they are attempting at the time. This is why I tend to discount a so-called "Newer Version" of the Bible if that version is the work of only one person. This is why a translation committees comprised of a number of scholars of divergent evangelical schools of thought are, IMHO anyway, generally more accurate compared to a version that is the work of one sole person. This isn't to say that all translation-committee versions are always 100% correct in all of their translation works, but the odds are that a version done by such a committee generally speaking is much more accurate than one that isn't.

You did see where the KJV by committee translated 5 different locations or concepts as if they were the same?

 

[Paul from Antioch]

You did see where the KJV by committee translated 5 different locations or concepts as if they were the same?

No, I haven't seen these "5 Different Locations or Concepts." Could you please give me the specific Bible passages where these exist?

 

[Paul from Antioch]

Another problem is when one English word is use to translate more than one person, place, thing or idea expressed in the source language. For example, "Hell" appears in some translations for both Hades and Gehenna, which adds confusion not clarity to the text.

The NASB95 translates Gehenna as Hell, but also translates tartaroo as hell. The KJV translates the Hebrew "sheol" as hell, the Greek Gehenna as Hell, the Greek Hades as Hell and the Greek tartaroo as hell.

It's been my understanding that "Gehenna" is sort of like a "Holding Place" for lost people until Christ's Second Coming (Rapture), that "Tartaroo" is the final location for these souls after they are permanently condemned by Christ at the "Great White Throne Judgment." IOW, both of them are considered as actual locations, but "Gehenna" is now the holding place (Similar to our local jails) until "The Great White Throne Judgment" (Similar to our Federal Prisons). I see little textual confusion for, IMHO anyway, there being any inherit confusion in the two locations: "Gehenna" is merely a "Holding Place," whereas "Tartaroo" is the location where all lost people will permanently (and eternally) reside. At least this seems to be how almost all Evangelical Scholars that I have read interpret the two terms.

 

[Van]

No, I haven't seen these "5 Different Locations or Concepts." Could you please give me the specific Bible passages where these exist?

Here is post 28:

"Another problem is when one English word is use to translate more than one person, place, thing or idea expressed in the source language. For example, "Hell" appears in some translations for both Hades and Gehenna, which adds confusion not clarity to the text.

The NASB95 translates Gehenna as Hell, but also translates tartaroo as hell. The KJV translates the Hebrew "sheol" as hell, the Greek Gehenna as Hell, the Greek Hades as Hell and the Greek tartaroo as hell."​

The KJV translates "sheol" 31 times as hell. From Deuteronomy 32:22 to Habakkuk 2:5.
The KJV translates Hades 10 times as hell. From Matthew 11:23 to Revelation 20:14.
The KJV translates Gehenna 12 times as hell. From Matthew 5:22 to James 3:6
The KJV translates tartaroo 1 time as hell. See 2 Peter 2:4

Oops, I see I made a math error, not 5 locations or concepts, but 4. My bad...

 

[Van]

It's been my understanding that "Gehenna" is sort of like a "Holding Place" for lost people until Christ's Second Coming (Rapture), that "Tartaroo" is the final location for these souls after they are permanently condemned by Christ at the "Great White Throne Judgment." IOW, both of them are considered as actual locations, but "Gehenna" is now the holding place (Similar to our local jails) until "The Great White Throne Judgment" (Similar to our Federal Prisons). I see little textual confusion for, IMHO anyway, there being any inherit confusion in the two locations: "Gehenna" is merely a "Holding Place," whereas "Tartaroo" is the location where all lost people will permanently (and eternally) reside. At least this seems to be how almost all Evangelical Scholars that I have read interpret the two terms.

The temporary holding cell is Hades, not Gehenna.
The spirits of the lost remain in Hades until the resurrection of the dead. See Revelations 20:11-15.
No verse (I am aware of) says or suggests "tartaroo" is where those condemned in the Great White Throne judgment are tossed. Scripture says the Lake of fire (Revelations 20:15)